newbie question about a car for sale

L

L0L

Member
Hello all

just joined to mainly ask a question.

i am looking to change my car(vw scirocco) for something with an auto and possibly a 2 seater convertible(been 15 plus years since i owned one) and a z4 is of interest to me as i like the styling. never driven one, but not found one to view yet. i am test driving 2 slk cars tomorrow and 09 1.8 200k and an 04 350, so when it comes to finding a z4 to test then it will be compared to the merc.

now my question is regarding prices and conditions along with miles. i have seen a 3ltr sport z4 on an 57 plate for £4850 with 127k miles if not a little more and while this isnt a potential it is one of very few cars im seeing in a 40 mile radius of my location. i did a history check and while its got a 81% pass rate(1%more than my vw) it does seem to have a few advisories on the recent mot.

1. Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
2. Nearside rear registration plate lamp inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources (4.7.1 (b) (i))
3. Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))
4. Rear sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened

mot date was oct last year and while the 1st 2 are nothing really, the rear sub frame had been an advisory since 2021 mot and so i question the value.

the question is: is this what you would call a overpriced example or is this a decent one? not sure what a good example for this era of z4 is really.

thanks
 
I bought my Z4 nearly 10 years ago, I found then, the biggest concentration of Z4's was a 20 mile radius around Nottingham. Locally there would only be the odd one for sale and this would mean traveling 150ish miles to view Z4's.
I was after an auto 3.0.
The prices and mileage don't mean anything. The first Z4 I viewed was the most expensive but at the time reasonably high miles at 60,000. The car happened to be immaculate but had a big gap from when it was last serviced. So continued the search.
Viewed a further 7 Z4's with lower mileage but slightly cheaper. Mostly the condition in an out was terrible but looked great in photo's. The worst was on the cheaper end but with only 25,000 ish miles. Came with a hard top so all looked great. Every panel had minor damaged and interior severely abused but service history great.
Ended up buying the first Z4 I saw.
What I am getting at is view many cars irrespective of price and mileage and even service history. You'll get a feel of what your looking for.
Convertibles seem to get abused and I don't mean mechanically. I am sure someone else will be along to advise on what to look for in that regard. :thumbsup:
Good luck!
 
thanks for the reply.

i know you can get good and bad examples of any car really and sometimes mileage doesnt mean a lot unless its not been looked after and the mileage of that particular one doesnt bother me much. granted i am looking for one with less mileage as my scirocco is a 2012 , but currently on 74k miles(near 58k when i got it a year ago) and ideally dont want to change it for something too high if i have better options, but obviously with older cars mileage will be expected to be high. the mercs im test driving are on 60k for the 09 and 68k for the v6, both have 75% pass rate, but the v6 has less or no advisories and its a 7 owner car and both look in pretty good condition. both are auto, but the 09 is over £8k and the v6 is £5.5k. the 6k mark is more of what id be looking at as a max price as i dont know what my vw will be worth. my only convertible to own was a 1998 MGF 120hp 1.8, so i dont have much experience. i would like a metal folding roof, but its not the key selling point.

mileage/condition/price of what the slk 350 is what im comparing to as far as other cars go. im not singling out a 2 seater as my next car, but due to having a company car for work i dont put the miles on much these days, so can get away with something a little less practical and with regards to the z4, im not purposely looking for a 3ltr, my scirocco is the entry level 120hp tsi 1.4 manual, so i will want something with more power to compensate for the auto box, but to also not feel regret of changing from a turbo. The car i use for work is a 22 plate kia sportage 1.6 turbo petrol with a 7 speed auto. thats a 150 odd horsepower car with an auto that is not the best at times, so with that i could probably get away with the 2ltr z4 for how often it will be used. however i still dont know what a good price for a 2003-2009 is with them sometimes being more expensive and used than an slk.
 
This one (same as mine) looks good - £3,820. 113k is nothing to worry about with the M54 engine if it’s been correctly serviced . . . and it seems to cope with some neglect too.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165826845633
IMO automatic transmission is much better suited to a big torquey engine like this than a small turbo engine.
The advantage of buying a Z4 over, say, a Merc is that you get the benefit of the camaraderie and the expertise on this forum which can either save you a fortune (in diagnosis and maintenance costs) or cost you a fortune (in “must have” upgrades) :rofl:
 
Its all very well saying the engine will be fine at higher miles (100k plus) but the rest of the car will be well worn. It'll probably (or at least should be) on its third set of struts, shocks and springs by then, plus rear trailing arm bushes, lower front arms, drop links and so on and then of course disks and pads. That little lot could add to to quite a sum to put right.
Re suspension (struts and shocks), remember that the bounce test is no longer part of the MOT so as long as they are not leaking they will pass with possibly (likely) no damping left. 50,000 miles is about their life span.
 
Thanks for replies. havent quite figured out how to quote properly on here but:

Usel - thanks for the post to the other thread and yeah thats the bmw i saw although was on either AT or Motors and like with all cars i look at i went onto car tax check site to look up more details and check what mot history they show. for that particular car, what i question is the oil leak and rear subframe corrosion. i know the corrosion isnt always something to worry about that urgently, but when its been like it since the last mot , so over a year then i do have my doubts about it and the price aswell. it does look smart still. i did look at their stock and saw other zeds, but one that appeals is a manual which i dont want. i want an auto as after nearly 3 months in one for work i want one for myself.

Zedebee - that one does look nice and a better price along with big less miles. regardless of car i wont be looking at another turbo unless its a 2ltr and has near 200hp. my car is in for mot on tues, so im in no rush to change cars, so ill have time to find one and compare. like with the mercs i will look for a 2ltr and the 3ltr to test and compare.

saying this though i have been looking at a 116i with the 2ltr engine although thats only a 122hp as well as a 170hp 1 series coupe. im not a big bmw fan, but these are the only models id consider.
 
Rockhopper said:
Its all very well saying the engine will be fine at higher miles (100k plus) but the rest of the car will be well worn. It'll probably (or at least should be) on its third set of struts, shocks and springs by then, plus rear trailing arm bushes, lower front arms, drop links and so on and then of course disks and pads. That little lot could add to to quite a sum to put right.
Re suspension (struts and shocks), remember that the bounce test is no longer part of the MOT so as long as they are not leaking they will pass with possibly (likely) no damping left. 50,000 miles is about their life span.
Click to expand...
Everything you say is true, however at higher mileages components like suspension become almost consumables - you will have to replace them whether the car has done 50k, 100k or 150k unless they have just been done. A well maintained 100k Z4 with all the bits replaced is likely to be a much better ownership proposition than a 50k car which has only been serviced on the indicator. One of the reasons that prices decrease with increased mileage is the concern about engine failure, which those familiar with the M54 (and N52) know is a pretty rare occurrence.
 
Check the Mercs for rust - especially underneath

Prices for the Z4 are all over the place, be prepared to travel for a good one - look on the classifieds here as well, some good cars owned by enthusiasts.
I always prefer to buy on condition and history rather than miles (unless it’s really cheap) - a well maintained car with a good service record will usually cause less problems than a lower mileage car with basic servicing
 
Whilst a newby myself l can testify that my 100k Coupe which l drove home from Halifax yesterday after purchase absolutely amazed me, so quite, no rattling inside or out and was so "tight ", I was amazed it could be around 15 years old. I believe these are very well designed and built. Even averaged just over 37mph.....I thought that was great .....I obviously was just cruising home to South Wales. Good luck with your search :thumbsup:
 
is the 2ltr gutless regardless of whether it uses an auto or manual?

test drove those mercs not long ago and really like them, the v6 more so as well as being a better spec(minus the scarf vent), the auto box were good with nice kick down on both although the v6 model as manual mode too. the 1.8 supercharger model pulled really well and was quick even in that type of car. i suppose it does have 182hp and high torque too which is a lot more than my scirocco. however as the z4 models dont offer forced induction is not offered in this generation will the 2ltr be pretty gutless or is the size and chassis of the car good enough to not make it seem a slouch? its 30hp more with similar torque than my 1.4 and no turbo, but id imagine these 2 seaters and rwd to be better set up than the vw.
 
L0L said:
is the 2ltr gutless regardless of whether it uses an auto or manual?
Click to expand...
Not driven an auto but picked up a cheapo 2.0 manual for a winter runabout and was pleasantly surprised.
It has nowhere near the grunt of the 6-cyl engines of course, but with the smaller, lighter engine the balance is great and it'll hustle along the back roads very well.
150bhp doesn't sound much but back in the day I ran a 2.8i Capri which realistically had about that power and then it was considered a very fast motor.
I think the main concern with the 4-pot is more around it's longevity. This one I have is on 114k. I've had to change the variable valve timing servo to get rid of the EML, but apart from that it's fine.
 
enuff_zed said:
L0L said:
is the 2ltr gutless regardless of whether it uses an auto or manual?
Click to expand...
Not driven an auto but picked up a cheapo 2.0 manual for a winter runabout and was pleasantly surprised.
It has nowhere near the grunt of the 6-cyl engines of course, but with the smaller, lighter engine the balance is great and it'll hustle along the back roads very well.
150bhp doesn't sound much but back in the day I ran a 2.8i Capri which realistically had about that power and then it was considered a very fast motor.
I think the main concern with the 4-pot is more around it's longevity. This one I have is on 114k. I've had to change the variable valve timing servo to get rid of the EML, but apart from that it's fine.
Click to expand...

thanks for reply.

according to a spec sheet comparison i found online the 2ltr has more power, same torque, but a faster 0-60 and a higher top speed than my scirocco, but obviously i have a turbo which will make it feel quicker i guess. not sure if it said manual or auto, but still higher stats than my car.

i have never driven a car with a supercharger before, so to me i dont know if that 200k merc felt quick because of it or just the fact it has a lot more power. the turbo in my car is tiny, but i know its there. i havent driven many cars since a T sport corolla i had years ago that had quick acceleration as an N/A. the 2ltr Z4 i found seemed to have sold and the other Z4 i saw at the same place is the 2.5, but a manual which is obviously something i dont want as theres no point changing cars otherwise, so i am unable to find one close enough to test.

while i can drive fast(not break the law) a lot of the time, i do like to cruise, so really i would want a smooth cruiser. until i get chance to test a Zed, i do want to find out from owners or previous owners how smooth the 2ltr is and its ability to overtake if need be? this would probably turn in to a daily use if i get a secondary job.
 
If you want an Auto go for a 2.5 or 3.0 you should get a low milage facelift for around £5k, (I did), the more miles the more Maintenence you are going to have to do, if you’re into DIY that is not a problem, if you need a garage it costs £££
The 2.0 is not the greatest engine but they are cheap, whatever you choose buy on condition and check the service and MOT history
 
thanks for replies.

i am having a little rethink of the bigger engine cars im looking at as im going to be doing a secondary job that could be up to 200 miles a week maybe more, but i dont know for sure yet, so got to think how much more the running costs will be as originally it wasnt going to get daily use.

i know a lot of things effect mpg and range anyways, but given this generation of Zed's age etc, how close are they to what the book figures say? even brand new cars i know dont always meet what the stats say, but out of all the cars ive owned the scirocco is the only one to meet and even exceed the stats. my car should do 489 miles and 44mpg and other than the odd 38/39mpg i regularly see 44 plus even with a bit of spirited driving(well quick through the gears to legal limit) i see 43 onwards. highest mpg ive got out the car is 51. the range can vary from 360 to over 500 depending on what it says after i fill up. so for a 2012 turbo car regardless of being a low powered one matching or bettering the figures is very good in my eyes.

can i expect similar from the zeds or will they likely be well under the stats? if they ever met them in the first place that is.
 
My 3.0i auto over the past year is showing 28.5mpg on the computer, that's mostly around town to and from work. I've never worked out the real MPG but its probably a little bit less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom